Rookie Draft Issue, need some opinions

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

Unless they are in the bylaws, don't allow conditional trades because it gets too messy. If it's not in the bylaws, then this was a handshake agreement which are always a risk in fantasy and in real life.

Question though: in real life, how does the NFL enforce this stuff? What happens if CAR trades McCaffrey to MIA for a 2020 1st, but it becomes a 1st + 2nd if McCaffrey rushes for over 1,500 yards? What if MIA trades away their 2nd round pick, and that scenario happens?

There is nothing in the bylaws about conditional trades, and also the terms of the conditional trade were not made public, only after the draft happened because Owner B felt like the deal was broken.

Then Owner B took a risk, and it didn't pay off. Maybe now they'll be more hesitant about making these types of deals and/or trading with Owner A in general. I think the league needs to move on and discourage these types of trades in the future. Just gets everything messy for little/no gain.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

What kind of loser makes a deal like that then trades up ahead of their supposed partner in crime to snipe them, then turns around and complains when the person they just screwed over big time then screws them back. I feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

[MrUbuto]

What kind of loser makes a deal like that then trades up ahead of their supposed partner in crime to snipe them, then turns around and complains when the person they just screwed over big time then screws them back. I feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

"You ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'"

[Chwf3rd]

I also posted this in the commish corner.

To not clutter things, simply stated a trade was made between two owners prior to the start of a rookie draft where Owner A stated they would not take two specific players in the rookie draft at pick 6. The two Owners had a VERY VERY good idea how the first 5 picks would go leading to Owner A getting a certain player with the 6th pick.

On Draft day Owner B traded up from Pick 8 to the 4th pick making a selection. This impacted the draft leaving Owner A without the expected pick at #6 and Owner A then selected one of the two players they said they would not draft with pick #6, thus leaving neither of the two agreed upon players available at pick 9 for Owner B.

My question is, should Owner A have stayed with their agreement despite Owner B trading back up, or did the trade by Owner B void any previous agreements?

So Team B fooled Team A into telling them who they were going to draft. Then, knowing Team A was going to take a player he wanted, Team B traded up ahead of Team A to snipe him. And now that Team B has successfully conned Team A he is mad at Team A? Does this make sense to anyone else?

I think you've got it wrong. Here's my analysis of it:

The condition on the deal was that Team A wouldnt take either of 2 players at #6, both teams expecting the top 5 to go a certain way. Team B then traded up to #4 and threw the expectations off, while still expecting that Team A wouldnt select either of the two players at #6. Now that the draft didnt go as expected and the guys that Team A wanted weren't there at #6, he pivoted and picked one of the players that he told Team B he wouldnt.

The real doofus is Team B, completely relying on Team A to not pick one of the two players he wanted even when Team B traded up and threw off the expectations of both parties.

[abloom]

If the trade was contingent on not taking 2 specific players, and those players were contingent on the top 5 picks being gone, and then one of those top 5 isn't picked then the contingencies are over.

If it was only contingent on not picking one of the two sure hold him to it and tell him he can either trade the pick or make a different pick. But just realize that the bylaws of the league should be followed. And if this sets precedent make sure it's understood what it is

[1coldone]

This is why the picks should be traded before the draft, enter these at your own risk...lol.

[AussieMate]

I'm with DD here, if both parties had a fair idea how the first 5 picks would go then team A would have to have known he would shake up the draft. I say the draft stands and they'll both think again about making deals like this on more than a handshake. If it can be proved that team A picked who they both assumed was going to be picked in that spot than maybe Team A has a case.
Both parties are idiots making deal based around assuming who 5 picks would be before theirs, just ridiculous.

[pokerplayer1000]

I also posted this in the commish corner.

To not clutter things, simply stated a trade was made between two owners prior to the start of a rookie draft where Owner A stated they would not take two specific players in the rookie draft at pick 6. The two Owners had a VERY VERY good idea how the first 5 picks would go leading to Owner A getting a certain player with the 6th pick.

On Draft day Owner B traded up from Pick 8 to the 4th pick making a selection. This impacted the draft leaving Owner A without the expected pick at #6 and Owner A then selected one of the two players they said they would not draft with pick #6, thus leaving neither of the two agreed upon players available at pick 9 for Owner B.

My question is, should Owner A have stayed with their agreement despite Owner B trading back up, or did the trade by Owner B void any previous agreements?

So Team B fooled Team A into telling them who they were going to draft. Then, knowing Team A was going to take a player he wanted, Team B traded up ahead of Team A to snipe him. And now that Team B has successfully conned Team A he is mad at Team A? Does this make sense to anyone else?

I think you've got it wrong. Here's my analysis of it:

The condition on the deal was that Team A wouldnt take either of 2 players at #6, both teams expecting the top 5 to go a certain way. Team B then traded up to #4 and threw the expectations off, while still expecting that Team A wouldnt select either of the two players at #6. Now that the draft didnt go as expected and the guys that Team A wanted weren't there at #6, he pivoted and picked one of the players that he told Team B he wouldnt.

The real doofus is Team B, completely relying on Team A to not pick one of the two players he wanted even when Team B traded up and threw off the expectations of both parties.

This is pretty much exactly how it went down.

[Ice]

Some fantasy owners are mullets. Better to make these trades on the clock.
caveat emptor

[jordanzs]

I will tell owners in my league that I’m not drafting a certain player. Then I’ll draft that player.

I’ll tell owners that I’m most likely drafting a certain person, then I’ll pick my real target.

It’s called chess. I play the game to outsmart my competition.

If anyone is dumb enough to make trades based upon who they think I’m drafting or who I said I was drafting, then they can suck on the results.

[TheNuts]

I will tell owners in my league that I’m not drafting a certain player. Then I’ll draft that player.

I’ll tell owners that I’m most likely drafting a certain person, then I’ll pick my real target.

It’s called chess. I play the game to outsmart my competition.

If anyone is dumb enough to make trades based upon who they think I’m drafting or who I said I was drafting, then they can suck on the results.

You play with dip shits if they buy anything you say

[jordanzs]

I will tell owners in my league that I’m not drafting a certain player. Then I’ll draft that player.

I’ll tell owners that I’m most likely drafting a certain person, then I’ll pick my real target.

It’s called chess. I play the game to outsmart my competition.

If anyone is dumb enough to make trades based upon who they think I’m drafting or who I said I was drafting, then they can suck on the results.

You play with dip shits if they buy anything you say

Well that’s the thing. They don’t buy what I say. They’re savvy enough to know that when they pump me for info, I’m not revealing my true poker hand. But if they ask, I still try, with a smile on my face.

And we don’t do guppy things like try to fix the draft with conditional trades.

[jordanzs]

I also posted this in the commish corner.

To not clutter things, simply stated a trade was made between two owners prior to the start of a rookie draft where Owner A stated they would not take two specific players in the rookie draft at pick 6. The two Owners had a VERY VERY good idea how the first 5 picks would go leading to Owner A getting a certain player with the 6th pick.

On Draft day Owner B traded up from Pick 8 to the 4th pick making a selection. This impacted the draft leaving Owner A without the expected pick at #6 and Owner A then selected one of the two players they said they would not draft with pick #6, thus leaving neither of the two agreed upon players available at pick 9 for Owner B.

My question is, should Owner A have stayed with their agreement despite Owner B trading back up, or did the trade by Owner B void any previous agreements?

So Team B fooled Team A into telling them who they were going to draft. Then, knowing Team A was going to take a player he wanted, Team B traded up ahead of Team A to snipe him. And now that Team B has successfully conned Team A he is mad at Team A? Does this make sense to anyone else?

I’m with you and it makes no sense to me. If team B has any gripes, then they need to trade the guy that they sniped team A with at 1.4 and offer that player in a fair package deal to whosever team A ended up “settling” for at 1.6.

This sounds like a case where team B is a savvy shark and team A is a pushover guppy. I would personally be team B but if I moved ahead to snipe team A at 1.4, I would have zero gripes whatsoever about team A changing his draft strategy at 1.6. Nor would I raise a stink so that the commish has to make a decision or seek answers on how to handle.

[BlackOmega]

this is simply the fantasy football version of caveat emptor

[jordanzs]

Upon further review, after reading this:

The two Owners had a VERY VERY good idea how the first 5 picks would go leading to Owner A getting a certain player with the 6th pick.

And then seeing that owner B knowingly swooped into 1.4 to disrupt their understanding of the 1st 5 picks, which would've given Owner A the guy he wanted at 1.6.....that seems like Owner B knew who Owner A wanted at 1.6 & leapfrogged him on purpose.

If I was owner A, then at 1.6, I would go out of my way to snag the 2 guys that Owner B wanted at 1.9. Hell, I would take one of them at 1.6 and then try hard to trade to 1.7 to take the other guy.

Crazy that this is an issue in your league. They both deserve what they got in the end.